Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34009486›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2021

Intra-corporeal robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis comparing perioperative and long-term survival outcomes and recurrence patterns.

Kenji Zennami, Makoto Sumitomo, Kiyoshi Takahara, Takuhisa Nukaya, Masashi Takenaka, Kosuke Fukaya, Manabu Ichino, Naohiko Fukami, Hitomi Sasaki, Mamoru Kusaka and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy: Where we are in 2023.Investigative and clinical urology · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kenji ZennamiDepartment of Urology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan. zenken@fujita-hu.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8455-7364
Makoto SumitomoDepartment of Urology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Kiyoshi TakaharaDepartment of Urology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Takuhisa NukayaDepartment of Urology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Masashi TakenakaDepartment of Urology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Kosuke FukayaDepartment of Urology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Manabu IchinoDepartment of Urology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Naohiko FukamiDepartment of Urology, Fujita Health University Okazaki Medical Center, Okazaki, Japan.
Hitomi SasakiDepartment of Urology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Mamoru KusakaDepartment of Urology, Fujita Health University Okazaki Medical Center, Okazaki, Japan.
Ryoichi ShirokiDepartment of Urology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
Fujita Health University Hospital · JPFujita Health University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns between robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intra-corporeal urinary diversion (iRARC) and open radical cystectomy (ORC).

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 177 bladder cancer patients who received iRARC or ORC at Fujita Health University between 2008 and 2020. Our primary endpoint was long-term oncological outcomes. As a secondary endpoint, we examined perioperative outcomes, complications, and recurrence patterns. These outcome measures were compared between the propensity score (PS)-matched cohorts.

resultsPS-matched analysis resulted in 60 matched pairs from iRARC and ORC groups. The iRARC cohort was associated with significantly longer operative time (p = 0.02), lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rate (p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p < 0.001), fewer overall complications (p = 0.03), and lower rate of postoperative ileus (p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference between iRARC and ORC in 5-year RFS (p = 0.46), CSS (p = 0.63), and OS (p = 0.71). RFS and CSS were also comparable, even in locally advanced (≥ cT3) disease. Multivariate analysis identified lymphovascular invasion as a robust predictor of RFS, CSS, and OS. The number of recurrence was similar between the groups, while extra-pelvic lymph nodes were more frequent in iRARC than that in ORC (22.7% vs. 7.7%).

conclusionsiRARC has favorable perioperative outcomes, fewer complications, and comparable long-term survival outcomes, including locally advanced (≥ cT3) disease, compared to that in ORC. Our results need to be validated in prospective randomized clinical trials.

Indexed as

Bladder cancerIntra-corporeal urinary diversionLong-term survivalOpen radical cystectomyRecurrenceRobot-assisted radical cystectomy

Identifiers

PMID34009486
OpenAlexW3162109802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.